Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 4:09:33 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Right now it seems to me that forts need some love. Defense in this game sucks right now.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 301
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 7:43:15 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1853
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
I totally disagree with concept of increasing bonuses given by forts. It artificially decreases speed of operation, creating dull trench warfare. It is just another attempt to patch up poor and simplistic design of combat engine, reserves mode and logistic.

At the moment game have two modes - trench warfare and steamroller. Increasing impact of forts would make game depressingly boring.


In ideal world of proper game design I would decrease impact of forts (especially level 1 to 3) making battles more dynamic. Losses and especially logistics would be limitation.


< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/22/2013 8:14:40 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 302
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 11:37:29 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
I am more in line with Kamil here. There are way too many forts in the game as is. People complain that post mid 42 we are seeing WWI. I tend to agree. And to be honest what we have is what we are stuck with. Nothing is going to change. FWIW though I wouldn't mind seeing forts improved but I would argue less forts in total and limits on fort size in open terrain. When I see these German fort lines 4 and 5 deep along the front I just shake my head. It should not be possible. Each side should have an absolute limit on a total that they can have in place at any one time. It's nuts ATM. But it is what it is.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 303
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/22/2013 11:59:36 PM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 483
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I totally disagree with concept of increasing bonuses given by forts. It artificially decreases speed of operation, creating dull trench warfare. It is just another attempt to patch up poor and simplistic design of combat engine, reserves mode and logistic.

At the moment game have two modes - trench warfare and steamroller. Increasing impact of forts would make game depressingly boring.


In ideal world of proper game design I would decrease impact of forts (especially level 1 to 3) making battles more dynamic. Losses and especially logistics would be limitation.



I agree. Forts are plenty strong as it is.

(in reply to Kamil)
Post #: 304
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 10:02:04 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
But on the other hand it can't be that a handful of engineers / sappers can reduce a mighty fort in a single turn. If there is a limit on forts, which I don't disagree with, a level 3-4 fort should not get reduced in a single attack. Fort WITE2 a new definition of fort is needed. Perhaps something along the lines of level 1 representing basic trenches etc, level 2 more sophisticated systems with minefields, anti-tank trenches etc (like the systems in Kursk). Level 3 and above are reserved for real fortifications and fortresses. So normally at the front forts should not exceed level 1 and only for certain stretches level 2. As a sidenote, perhaps decay should also not occur that fast. I tend to agree to the previous few that strengthening forts would be an artificial prop, like the blizzard or surprise turn right now.

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 305
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 10:20:52 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1693
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
One of the things I remember from reading lost victories by Von Manstein was his claim that well dug in and fortified troops were very, very reluctant to leave the shelter they had. Guns were well dug in, supply dumps were established and lines of communication were clear.

In the game troops do not suffer from this at all. Perhaps you could increase fort strength but decrease mobility by (x) amount for troops (infantry) that are dug in beyond level 1. That would encourage the attacking player to focus strength on a certain point of the line, knowing that troops on the flanks might have difficulty retreating from a possible pocket.


_____________________________



"An agile, adaptable and capable Air Force that, person for person, is second to none, and that makes a decisive air power contribution in support of the UK Defence Mission."


(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 306
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 12:36:51 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 820
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I agree that forts can't really be changed in this game, the whole combat system needs reworking from the ground up and a more realistic fortification system is a fundamental part of it.The idea of engineers reducing forts to nothing needs to be significantly toned down.I'm guessing their main roll would have been to clear mines and obstacles, they couldn't just magic away a trench system or prevent presighted artillery and machine guns from bringing down devastating fire.The position would also have been chosen to favor the defender in the first place, again nothing they can do about it.

The most important force multipliers for the attacking side should be local air superiority and commander ability.This would give the Germans a great advantage in 41 which would gradually decrease through 42 and 43 as the Soviets gained air supremacy and better leadership.

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 307
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:10:41 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1853
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
Apart from the fact that it is far to easy to reduce pocket of entrenched, supplied from air quality troops another annoying thing is, that my divisions that were scheduled to withdrawal (already on withdrawal status) are being rebuild.

Ridiculous.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 308
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:13:22 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
Of course fort system is simplified if it would be correct regarding the most complicated war strategy. Of course we want mine-fields, long-term concrete fortifications, ships of Baltic and black-sea fleet, armored trains etc. I think we must basis on what can be changed withoutdestruction of balance.

I think there should be something ery expensive and long-produsing but more serious than useless forts, something like superforts of Atlantic wall. Germany has no intrique now in distributing their AP, let it be choise - good commanders and micromanagement or old-school generals bit some strongholds on Dnepr, Wisla and Oder.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 309
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 1:57:14 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
The basic issue is the combat engine is based 75% on retreat loses therefor whatever usless window dressing that is hung up is just that window dressing.

The combat engine should be based on mordern warfare ( firepower ) and not you lose so u take a bunch of loses based on nothing.

Until the combat engine is based on something other then retreat loses the game will always be about attacking.

A ****ty combat engine makes for trench warfare or completely unrealistic 1000 miles never ending drives west or east.

Messing with the logistic and air systems for witw is not going to help anything other then possibly make matters more of a disaster.

Until this combat engine is throw out or over hauled we will keep seeing the same BS

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 310
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 2:05:24 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6239
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
The combat engine definitely underestimates the attritional component of modern combat. It feels almost like something designed for classical/ancient warfare with the emphasis on retreats, which in that era was indeed the overwhelming cause of combat losses. That's just not the case anymore.

The butcher's bill needs to go up for the attacker especially, whether or not he succeeds. Right now only holds punish the attacker (which is why I still believe that retreats are too easily achieved in this game. 2-1 is just too low a bar. People may not like my fort changes, but I still think this 2-1 requirement is necessarily biased in favor of the offense. It's way too easy to reach.)

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/23/2013 2:08:42 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 311
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 2:25:01 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 820
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Yes I agree.
Higher casualties for the attacking side.Lower for retreating units especially high experience, well lead units.Keep high casualties for routed units.Combat losses should also be related to the final odds ratio.At the moment there seems to be no relationship at all.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 312
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 3:17:11 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Yes, if one looks at the Red Army's gigantic losses while slowly but surely pushing back the Germans in the year between Kursk and Bagration the current system is a joke.

As for encircled units, a certain reduction of CV is necessary, but on the other hand a very important issue for encircled units is the organisation. When encircled units kept great cohesion it was hard to dislodge them when they were half-way supplied, especially when the ring was not tight. However, when they were in the state of confusion like in the border battles of 41, they easily broke.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 313
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/23/2013 9:44:00 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2190
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Another thing that is plainly wrong is the very high levels of German OOB that can be maintained. The return rate of disabled should be 0.005 just like the Russians. All these OOB's of 3.5 million plus are over the top. Either Attrition itself needs to be ramped way up or the return rate dropped way down. The Russian rate seems ok to me, both attrition and returns. But not so the Germans. They are getting too many advantages for morale/exp in the attrition game.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 314
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/24/2013 9:15:23 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
Well, it is a combination between high return rate and low losses. I would like to see calculations of the German OOB with historic losses. But for sure German OOB after 41 should not top out 3.5 million, rather remain at like 3 million, unless the Soviet player runs away without fighting the entire time.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 315
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/25/2013 11:32:23 PM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1853
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
We keep playing and in the meantime I just looked at the situation at the end of different "chapters" of my game with Mike.



Blitzkrieg (until end of Nov '41)

I haven't captured any major cities, I failed to destroy industry, but offensive wasn't complete failure.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 750k (3k)
Sov: 3.530k (2.020k) units destroyed in November: 48 divisions (40 inf) and 9 brigades (5 inf)

OOB:

Ger: 3.268k
Sov: 4.420k




Winter Counter-offensive


I was running away along whole front. Lots of territory lost, but managed to hold on to Smolensk and Kharkov.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 750k (7k) units destroyed: 1 inf reg
Sov: 580k (10k)

OOB:

Ger: 3.360k
Sov: 5.870k



Spring offensive (until mid June '42)



I managed to regain half of lost territory. Summer looked promising.


Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 225k (13k) units destroyed: 1 inf division
Sov: 880k (290k) units destroyed: 2 corps (1 cav, 1 tank), 34 divisions (inf) and 5 brigades (4 inf)

OOB:

Ger: 3.697k
Sov: 6.853k




Failed summer offensive of '42 (until beginning of Oct '42)



Intensive fighting culminated by disastrous Stalingrad-like pocket. Total failure.

Casualties: (captured)

Ger: 645k (28k) units destroyed: 2 divisions (1 pz, 1 mot), 3 regiments (2 inf, 1 sec)
((Ger 785k (168k)) including pocketed units)

Units the were encircled during last turn of summer of '42 - 140k: 13 divisions (3 Pz, 2 Mot, 7 inf, 1 Mot) and 1 mot brigade, 1 inf regiment


Sov: 1525k (505k) units destroyed: 4 corps (2 inf, 1 cav, 1 tank), 49 divisions (47 inf) and 2 brigades


OOB:

Ger: 3.093k
Sov: 6.511k


Situation is beyond critical.




Just to tease a bit - Fast forward few turns - Mike got his Stalingrad, I (probably) managed to pull Kharkov.

I am dead, dead but not buried yet.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 2/26/2013 12:50:29 AM >

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 316
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/26/2013 9:59:20 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5720
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Another thing that is plainly wrong is the very high levels of German OOB that can be maintained. The return rate of disabled should be 0.005 just like the Russians. All these OOB's of 3.5 million plus are over the top. Either Attrition itself needs to be ramped way up or the return rate dropped way down. The Russian rate seems ok to me, both attrition and returns. But not so the Germans. They are getting too many advantages for morale/exp in the attrition game.



Not really.

The reason why GHC OOB is so high is because combat tempo is so low.

The key is SHC simply runs which causes a very low tempo very unlike the historical time frame.

You can't handy cap one side because the other simply does something completely unhistorical.

Just simply not logical.

1st you need to give SHC a reason to fight forward and tools. Then you can look at German OOB.

Sig

You answered your own question/statement " unless the Soviet player runs away" Thats basicly all that goes on the first 5 turns in north, first 10 turns in center and from June-Dec in south.

The GHC OOB is high because of the dance that goes on every game.

SHC runs east until Dec 41, then GHC runs west until April 42, then SHC with draws all spring,summer and fall of 42 only fighting where needed.

Fight forward and OOB will be in line with historical.


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmyypGyfng&list=PLrY4H4gWWBircAjo

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 317
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/26/2013 4:05:33 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
Some statistics. Two tank divisions and 1 SS MB escaped from Orel pocket. We werent able to destroy them completely during mud turns. Somehow each turn they could rebuild 2nd level forts, so it was nesessary to attack air-supply and fortified hexes multiple times. Half of my army sturmed this pocket and we lost morale of many units.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 318
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 2/26/2013 4:07:09 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
I just found that 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion was destroyed in the pocket, we killed 20 Tigers but unfortunately none of them were captured.

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 319
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:11:38 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T75. 19.11.1942. North






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 320
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:14:34 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T75. 19.11.1942. Center




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 321
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:19:43 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T75. 19.11.1942. South-West




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 322
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:22:47 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T75. 19.11.1942. South-East




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 323
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:25:08 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T75. 19.11.1942. South




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 324
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:30:29 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. North





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 325
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:33:02 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. Western front




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 326
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:35:35 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. South-West




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 327
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:38:39 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. South-East




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mike29 -- 3/16/2013 7:39:30 PM >

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 328
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:41:24 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. South




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 329
RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) - 3/16/2013 7:43:53 PM   
Mike29

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 9/10/2011
Status: offline
T80. 24.12.1942. OOB




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike29)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.114